I have to wonder how such a bounty would apply to larger-scale projects? I mean, for instance, what would the ramifications be of creating a bounty for a less-specific domain, or one in which there are numerous contributors so that one person couldn't solely claim responsiblity for the feature or program? [...] It's an individual, saying "I have a fund this large, and am willing to pay this much for these things to get done".
I listened to the example posted earlier, and it occurred to me that this communication would almost require you to have perfect pitch -- to memorize specific pitches (e.g. C, C sharp, D, etc.) for each word and be able to recognize them. Even if the pitches are relative and meant to be interpreted by context, what if you needed to say just one or two words? "Yes." "Right side." "Soon." If that were only one or two whistled pitches, you would have to be able to recognize them with great precision.
Does a word start at, say, a definite F sharp and go down to E flat? More likely, there are general concepts of "very high" pitch, "high" pitch, "medium" pitch, and so on. But that severely limits the possible combinations.
Re:Images are even easier to manipulate than words
on
News at a Glance
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Check out this fishy photo by the AFP (Agence France-Presse). It was taken with a wide-angle "fisheye" lens, which distorts the image of the actual scene.
That's a great point. This match does not represent man vs. machine. It is man vs. man. It's just that one side is using a machine to be their proxy player. The computer didn't come up with its strategies on its own. Its knowledge is the sum of its creators' knowledge. If the computer wins, it still has zero chess-playing ability of its own. All we can say is that it's a good puppet for its programmer overlords.
Or sell it to private enterprise. With a lot of VC funding, maybe they could actually replace Hubble's battery themselves. The Hubble is still the world's best telescope (AFAIK) in space.
Oops, I need to clarify my clarification. I'm talking only about XML schemas (customer-defined XSDs, not the Office ML standards) and maybe XSLT (XML Stylesheet Language Transformations) files too, but not regular Office documents! To my knowledge, all editions of Office 2003 can create regular Office files in XML.
From JFK's speech:... we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see [it] filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.
Is this Bush talking about the future of Iraq? Or is it Kennedy talking about the future of the moon? I couldn't help but notice how the language is nearly identical. If you change some nouns having to do with space and the moon to the Middle East and Iraq (like Mad Libs), you could well think you were reading one of Bush's speeches. Kennedy has a speaking style very much like Bush's (based on this speech, at least). He's full of vision and optimism, expressing faith in the abilities of Americans, and looking kindly on the history and heritage of the country. He even invokes Christianity and the blessings of God as Bush does. I don't see how you can praise the speech of one and condemn the speech of the other.
It's funny you should say that. In light of your remark, I find it amusing that your perspective is at odds with that of the author of "Common Sense." I am referring, of course, to Thomas Paine. He wrote the following:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian (violent person; thug); while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (THOMAS PAINE, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894))
Samuel Adams stated during ratification, "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." George Washington said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence..." Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Virginia Constitution of 1776, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of Arms..."
No other amendment so clearly, explicitly lays out the reasons for its own existence
The reasoning for the Constitution is laid out in the Federalist Papers. It is for authoritarian tendencies like yours that Alexander Hamilton penned Federalist No. 84 arguing against the Bill of Rights:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.... It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.
...
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
It is probably for this reason that the Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So even if you insist on misconstruing the Second Amendment in such way that it does not guarantee ordinary civilians the right to own firearms, it still does not mean that doing so is prohibited.
What's with the Penguin?
Q: One question you have (on the slide) is "What's with the penguin?"
Linus: I just have that because a lot of people ask me about it. I actually don't have a good answer. It just is, right?
There are a lot of reasons for the penguin. I was bitten by a penguin. And it's a true story. It's funny, because there are a lot of Web sites about the penguin. There's like The History of Tux, and things like that. And some of these Web sites have some of my explanation. And they almost universally say, "It's a great story, but it's not true." That I was bitten by a penguin.
It's true! I was bitten by a penguin! I mean, really! Take it from me! I'm wounded. Okay, so he wasn't six foot tall.
(Laughter.)
Q: Is it true he was radioactive? Is it true you killed it afterwards?
(Laughter.)
Linus: Okay, some fo the rumors aren't true.
I've talked to some people who are in advertising, and they love the penguin. They think it's the greatest logo ever. And it's funny thinking back. Because we made it for, I think, the 2.0 release. Like, in '95 or something? And a lot of people hated it because it wasn't serious enough. But it's great. The advertising people really like the fact that you can do things with it. "That's the stroke of genius! The guy who came up with the penguin is a marketing genius!" (Sarcastically) Yeah.
Om is, in the Hindu faith, the sound of the Creation of the Universe
That's pretty cool. My first thought was that the Big Hum = Vox Dei (Voice of God), as in "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky..." (Genesis 1:14) According to my faith, God spoke the universe into existence. Some people have speculated on a scientific connection between actual sound and the Creation, so this story is interesting from that perspective.
No, that's how it was thirty years ago before Saddam ruined the nation.
The only place in Iraq before March 20 like what you describe was Baghdad, where the palaces of Saddam's family stood. Much of the rest of Iraq didn't even have electricity, potable water, or paved roads.
The U.S. made careful plans to destroy as little of Iraq's infrastructure as possible. The U.S. is rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Not rebuilding what we destroyed, but what Saddam let fall into disrepair over the last 30 years. The mainstream Iraqis are on our side. Heck, one of them married an American soldier. Some prominent Iraqi Muslim leaders have told the people to cooperate with Western troops. Now, foreign Saddam-loving terrorists have come in and keep blowing up Iraq's infrastructure while the United States is trying to fix it... at its own expense, paid with American blood and money.
By introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the drilling in Alaska's wilderness.
Taxation is the mother of invention. No wait, that's not it. Necessity is the mother of invention. We will find and use alternatives when we need to.
As far as scarcity goes, (IIRC) the discovery of oil has outpaced the consumption of oil. Of course, as the article mentioned, there are political and economic factors that could be considered to constitute necessity.
The article is generally good, but then it totally bombs out at the end with its recommended solution. I can't help but think that the whole thing is politically motivated. It fails to explain how increasing taxes would encourage innovation and improve energy security.
Israel's population has a cornucopia of religions and ethnicities; a rainbow of skin colors, just like the United States does. Israel has three official languages, one of which is Arabic. Arab countries, on the other hand, are monotone olive. Little diversity is tolerated. South African apartheid would be a major step up from the typical Arab dictatorship.
See some charts below showing comparisons of liberties in various countries.
With Apple having a sub 5% market share worldwide, MS Office being on perhaps half of those, and perhaps less than 1% of the worldwide Apples requesting Hebrew support, we're talking about a very small customer base here requesting this feature.
True, but the article pointed out that IE:mac and Outlook Express:mac support Zulu. (It didn't say specifically about Office.) How many Zulu Mac users do you think exist in the world? And Zulu Mac-heads who want MS applications? Most of Israel's economy is high tech. The population is extremely educated and wired (per capita compared to other countries). And umm let's put it this way: High tech companies aren't outsourcing jobs to the Congo. There is no Microsoft Zimbabwe (although they might have a branch in South Africa, but Zulu is one of many languages there).
The important constitutional phrase is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
And every congressional session since the time that phrase was hammered out has begun with the members joining together in prayer to the God of the Bible. This tradition, which dates back to continental congresses and even state colonial governments, was made official practice in the national legislature when Benjamin Franklin, whom many here allege to have been a Deist, made this motion:
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire cannot rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that, 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest."
"I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."
- The Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787
"Service"! A religious service in the Capitol before each session?! He didn't even request that the service be non-sectarian. Today, the utterance of a vague, universalistic prayer at a football game is seen by some as unconstitutional! It really goes to show how this generation's perception is totally out of whack with the founders' intent.
George Washington, our first President, "Father of the Country," and general in the Revolutionary War, affirmed, "It is impossible to govern without God and the Bible." This is a belief that has held us together through thick and thin. It defines what an American is.
In his Farewell Address on 1796, President George Washington said,
"The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes."
This first leader of the country also said, "Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." He was not an extremist among Americans. I should point out that General Washington was elected unanimously to the presidency without contest. Nobody wanted to run against him. No secular faction rose up to oppose him. Nobody had any gripes about this man whom today would be railed against by the Left as being a radical right-wing religious fascist zealot Crusader (did I miss anything?). He was actually reluctant to take the office, but the country would not consider anyone else.
Here is the meaning of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment as given by The Capitol: A Pictorial History (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979)
Faith in the transcendent, sovereign God was in the public philosophy - the American consensus. America's story opens with the first words of the Bible, 'In the beginning God . ..' We are truthfully one nation 'under God' and our
The phrase separation of church and state does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of America's official documents. It does, however, appear in another prominent document, the Constitution of the former Soviet Union: "The church in the USSR is separated from the state from the church." (Article 52).
Looks like you atheists in the U.S. have your constitutions mixed up. This is NOT Soviet Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
The results for Best Modeling Tool (scroll to last chart) are:
- Winner: Visio 2003 - 37%
- 1st Runner up: Rational Rose - 18%
- 2nd Runner up: Oracle9i/10g JDeveloper - 7%
Eight other products are on the chart.Congratulations, you've discovered Capitalism.
( Koran search for Judah, Judea, or Gaza. Your boolean query produced no results. Hmmm)
Does a word start at, say, a definite F sharp and go down to E flat? More likely, there are general concepts of "very high" pitch, "high" pitch, "medium" pitch, and so on. But that severely limits the possible combinations.
Check out this fishy photo by the AFP (Agence France-Presse). It was taken with a wide-angle "fisheye" lens, which distorts the image of the actual scene.
That's a great point. This match does not represent man vs. machine. It is man vs. man. It's just that one side is using a machine to be their proxy player. The computer didn't come up with its strategies on its own. Its knowledge is the sum of its creators' knowledge. If the computer wins, it still has zero chess-playing ability of its own. All we can say is that it's a good puppet for its programmer overlords.
Or sell it to private enterprise. With a lot of VC funding, maybe they could actually replace Hubble's battery themselves. The Hubble is still the world's best telescope (AFAIK) in space.
Oops, I need to clarify my clarification. I'm talking only about XML schemas (customer-defined XSDs, not the Office ML standards) and maybe XSLT (XML Stylesheet Language Transformations) files too, but not regular Office documents! To my knowledge, all editions of Office 2003 can create regular Office files in XML.
Slight clarification: Only the Pro edition can create XML Office documents, but any edition of Office 2003 can read them.
Is this Bush talking about the future of Iraq? Or is it Kennedy talking about the future of the moon? I couldn't help but notice how the language is nearly identical. If you change some nouns having to do with space and the moon to the Middle East and Iraq (like Mad Libs), you could well think you were reading one of Bush's speeches. Kennedy has a speaking style very much like Bush's (based on this speech, at least). He's full of vision and optimism, expressing faith in the abilities of Americans, and looking kindly on the history and heritage of the country. He even invokes Christianity and the blessings of God as Bush does. I don't see how you can praise the speech of one and condemn the speech of the other.
It's funny you should say that. In light of your remark, I find it amusing that your perspective is at odds with that of the author of "Common Sense." I am referring, of course, to Thomas Paine. He wrote the following:
No other amendment so clearly, explicitly lays out the reasons for its own existence
The reasoning for the Constitution is laid out in the Federalist Papers. It is for authoritarian tendencies like yours that Alexander Hamilton penned Federalist No. 84 arguing against the Bill of Rights:
It is probably for this reason that the Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So even if you insist on misconstruing the Second Amendment in such way that it does not guarantee ordinary civilians the right to own firearms, it still does not mean that doing so is prohibited.What's with the Penguin?
Q: One question you have (on the slide) is "What's with the penguin?"
Linus: I just have that because a lot of people ask me about it. I actually don't have a good answer. It just is, right?
There are a lot of reasons for the penguin. I was bitten by a penguin. And it's a true story. It's funny, because there are a lot of Web sites about the penguin. There's like The History of Tux, and things like that. And some of these Web sites have some of my explanation. And they almost universally say, "It's a great story, but it's not true." That I was bitten by a penguin.
It's true! I was bitten by a penguin! I mean, really! Take it from me! I'm wounded. Okay, so he wasn't six foot tall.
(Laughter.)
Q: Is it true he was radioactive? Is it true you killed it afterwards?
(Laughter.)
Linus: Okay, some fo the rumors aren't true.
I've talked to some people who are in advertising, and they love the penguin. They think it's the greatest logo ever. And it's funny thinking back. Because we made it for, I think, the 2.0 release. Like, in '95 or something? And a lot of people hated it because it wasn't serious enough. But it's great. The advertising people really like the fact that you can do things with it. "That's the stroke of genius! The guy who came up with the penguin is a marketing genius!" (Sarcastically) Yeah.
(Laughter.)
So, whatever.
That's pretty cool. My first thought was that the Big Hum = Vox Dei (Voice of God), as in "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky..." (Genesis 1:14) According to my faith, God spoke the universe into existence. Some people have speculated on a scientific connection between actual sound and the Creation, so this story is interesting from that perspective.
The only place in Iraq before March 20 like what you describe was Baghdad, where the palaces of Saddam's family stood. Much of the rest of Iraq didn't even have electricity, potable water, or paved roads.
The U.S. made careful plans to destroy as little of Iraq's infrastructure as possible. The U.S. is rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Not rebuilding what we destroyed, but what Saddam let fall into disrepair over the last 30 years. The mainstream Iraqis are on our side. Heck, one of them married an American soldier. Some prominent Iraqi Muslim leaders have told the people to cooperate with Western troops. Now, foreign Saddam-loving terrorists have come in and keep blowing up Iraq's infrastructure while the United States is trying to fix it... at its own expense, paid with American blood and money.
The State Department did it the smart way. Put it all in one directory and block that directory.
We enjoy our work.
Taxation is the mother of invention. No wait, that's not it. Necessity is the mother of invention. We will find and use alternatives when we need to.
As far as scarcity goes, (IIRC) the discovery of oil has outpaced the consumption of oil. Of course, as the article mentioned, there are political and economic factors that could be considered to constitute necessity.
The article is generally good, but then it totally bombs out at the end with its recommended solution. I can't help but think that the whole thing is politically motivated. It fails to explain how increasing taxes would encourage innovation and improve energy security.
See some charts below showing comparisons of liberties in various countries.
Human Rights in the Middle East (PDF, 31.5 KB)
Political and Civil Rights in the Middle East (PDF, 31.6 KB)
Religious Intolerance in the Middle East (PDF, 1.15 MB)
Freedom of Religion in the Middle East (PDF, 346 KB)
IN DEPTH:
Israel & Human Rights: Myths and Facts
True, but the article pointed out that IE:mac and Outlook Express:mac support Zulu. (It didn't say specifically about Office.) How many Zulu Mac users do you think exist in the world? And Zulu Mac-heads who want MS applications? Most of Israel's economy is high tech. The population is extremely educated and wired (per capita compared to other countries). And umm let's put it this way: High tech companies aren't outsourcing jobs to the Congo. There is no Microsoft Zimbabwe (although they might have a branch in South Africa, but Zulu is one of many languages there).
And every congressional session since the time that phrase was hammered out has begun with the members joining together in prayer to the God of the Bible. This tradition, which dates back to continental congresses and even state colonial governments, was made official practice in the national legislature when Benjamin Franklin, whom many here allege to have been a Deist, made this motion:
"Service"! A religious service in the Capitol before each session?! He didn't even request that the service be non-sectarian. Today, the utterance of a vague, universalistic prayer at a football game is seen by some as unconstitutional! It really goes to show how this generation's perception is totally out of whack with the founders' intent.
George Washington, our first President, "Father of the Country," and general in the Revolutionary War, affirmed, "It is impossible to govern without God and the Bible." This is a belief that has held us together through thick and thin. It defines what an American is.
In his Farewell Address on 1796, President George Washington said,
This first leader of the country also said, "Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." He was not an extremist among Americans. I should point out that General Washington was elected unanimously to the presidency without contest. Nobody wanted to run against him. No secular faction rose up to oppose him. Nobody had any gripes about this man whom today would be railed against by the Left as being a radical right-wing religious fascist zealot Crusader (did I miss anything?). He was actually reluctant to take the office, but the country would not consider anyone else.
Here is the meaning of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment as given by The Capitol: A Pictorial History (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979)
The phrase separation of church and state does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of America's official documents. It does, however, appear in another prominent document, the Constitution of the former Soviet Union: "The church in the USSR is separated from the state from the church." (Article 52).
Looks like you atheists in the U.S. have your constitutions mixed up. This is NOT Soviet Russia.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Very interesting! Where did you search to find that? Gpo.gov is intimidatingly large.
All you have to do is go to the preferences and deselect the associations you don't want. The changes take effect immediately.